Supreme Court of Minnesota· 8/28/2008

State v. Clark

Citations

755 N.W.2d 241
2008 Minn. LEXIS 485
2008 WL 3926859

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that remand is not permitted where the state’s evidence in the first trial was legally insufficient, citing the Double Jeopardy Clause
concluding that Spreigl evidence of a prior bank robbery was admissible in the appellant’s aiding and abetting first-degree-murder trial “for the limited purposes of showing absence of mistake or identity as joint actors”
noting that an accomplice needs to have knowledge of the crime and intent to further its commission
noting that the State must prove that “the defendant had knowledge of the crime and ‘intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.’ ” (citation omitted)
explaining that any concerns regarding the prejudicial impact of the Spreigl evidence were minimized by the cautionary instruction on the permissible use of Spreigl evidence because we presume that jurors followed the court’s instructions
addressing issues likely to recur upon retrial to offer guidance and in the interest of preserving judicial resources

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Paul H. Anderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

54 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.